(06-05-2012 05:20 AM)kim Wrote: A charitable tax write off of 35 million (along with his others) will dump him into a verycomfortable tax shelter for his coming quarter estimates.

Perfect symmetry isn't it?

Rich gives to the rich, so the rich can see the rich's valuables that were donated by the rich.
Meanwhile, uncle sam, and the poor get the shaft, as usual.

So you're mad that someone made a $35M donation to an arts and sciences foundation? Or are you mad that he didn't donate to poor people? Or are you just mad that someone has $35M to donate in the first place? Or better yet, how about $700M?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

It is highly commendable of him to donate that kind of money, but we all need to be aware of the fact that he didn't loose any money because of the donation. These donations all work in a way that a person gives money to charity because of the tax benefits. If he didn't donate that money, he would get taxed and he will again loose that money. Most of the big businessman do exactly the same thing, so they are not to be glorified, because in the end they did not give any money, they had to loose the money in any case.

What nobody ever viewed is the comparison on how the money given to some random charity could be used if it went into taxes and into the government's cash register. Could it be used to build public schools, help the poor, feed the homeless, make more shelters for homeless, lower the taxes for everyone, or is it all irrelevant considering the amount of all the taxes and all those charities. Maybe it just isn't enough to make an impact on the whole countries taxes, but then again, 35 mil for just one donation is a lot of money and this way a person can get the publicity he wants/needs, he gets a hall named after him, people will say how great he is and his ego grows much more than if he had just paid taxes to the state.

Always be careful around these rich people, they ALWAYS have an agenda when it comes to money, they never share it around without reason. Profitable reason.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

Let's not get hung up on the idea that a person reclaims all the money donated via tax breaks. This man has a vested interest in cancer research and is an MIT grad. Shouldn't we first assume that he whole heartedly donated the money to foundations that he felt were important to society?

Think about this. If you knew this guy David, lets say he was a member of this forum and had an opposing point of view but was still respected and benefitial to our group. (I use that as an example because if I said 'friend' some would say 'I wouldn't be his friend') Would you hate him or even be mad at him for making a 35 million dollar donation? Would you question his motives or would you just be grateful that there are wealthy people out there willing to dump huge chunks of change on important organizations? Like people say, 35M doesn't really matter to this guy. So what makes those same people think that the tax breaks really matter that much? He probably paid 15M less in takes but had to take a 35M hit to do it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

My post was a bit more in general, than the attack on this guy and his donation. It is nice that people give to charity, all that is great. What I wanted to point out is that he did not spend money, he was suppose to give that money, it was only a matter of where. Would he give it to the state, so that the state can redistribute it, or will he give it to some organization that he likes? It is his choice entirely, all of us have nothing to say, as that is his money and all he is doing is legal 100%. That is all I wanted to point out, he is not a great benefactor, because he was suppose to loose that money, it was not his in the first place, his was only the choice where the money will go.

What would make him a great benefactor and a great caring person is if his taxes were 15 mil and he donated 35 mil, then that would mean that he donated 20 mil of his own personal money, not the tax breaks.

Since we do not know how much of that was tax money, and how much was his private, this last comment is stupid.

But the fact on my first comment and post still remains. Plus, I like to be sceptical, critical and objective.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

(10-05-2012 04:00 AM)Filox Wrote: My post was a bit more in general, than the attack on this guy and his donation. It is nice that people give to charity, all that is great. What I wanted to point out is that he did not spend money, he was suppose to give that money, it was only a matter of where. Would he give it to the state, so that the state can redistribute it, or will he give it to some organization that he likes? It is his choice entirely, all of us have nothing to say, as that is his money and all he is doing is legal 100%. That is all I wanted to point out, he is not a great benefactor, because he was suppose to loose that money, it was not his in the first place, his was only the choice where the money will go.

What would make him a great benefactor and a great caring person is if his taxes were 15 mil and he donated 35 mil, then that would mean that he donated 20 mil of his own personal money, not the tax breaks.

Since we do not know how much of that was tax money, and how much was his private, this last comment is stupid.

But the fact on my first comment and post still remains. Plus, I like to be sceptical, critical and objective.

Well his tax rate can't be more than 40%. Since brackets are marginalized he probably pays at least 30% effective. A 35M donation would be 35M he would be taxed at no more than 40% (35% might actually be the top rate, i cant remember) so he's probaby paying ~15M less in taxes but had to donate 35M to do it. So I estimate that roughly 20M came straight out of his pocket.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

Quote:My
post was a bit more in general, than the attack on this guy and his
donation. It is nice that people give to charity, all that is great.
What I wanted to point out is that he did not spend money, he was
suppose to give that money, it was only a matter of where. Would he give
it to the state, so that the state can redistribute it, or will he give
it to some organization that he likes? It is his choice entirely, all
of us have nothing to say, as that is his money and all he is doing is
legal 100%. That is all I wanted to point out, he is not a great
benefactor, because he was suppose to loose that money, it was not his
in the first place, his was only the choice where the money will go.

What
would make him a great benefactor and a great caring person is if his
taxes were 15 mil and he donated 35 mil, then that would mean that he
donated 20 mil of his own personal money, not the tax breaks.

Since we do not know how much of that was tax money, and how much was his private, this last comment is stupid.

But the fact on my first comment and post still remains. Plus, I like to be sceptical, critical and objective.

Well
his tax rate can't be more than 40%. Since brackets are marginalized he
probably pays at least 30% effective. A 35M donation would be 35M he
would be taxed at no more than 40% (35% might actually be the top rate, i
cant remember) so he's probaby paying ~15M less in taxes but had to
donate 35M to do it. So I estimate that roughly 20M came straight out of
his pocket.

How do you know the exact amount he had to
pay in taxes? Maybe he has a huge sale or something and needed to tip
the scales the other way?

(09-05-2012 02:39 AM)Filox Wrote: It is highly commendable of him to donate that kind of money, but we all need to be aware of the fact that he didn't loose any money because of the donation. These donations all work in a way that a person gives money to charity because of the tax benefits. If he didn't donate that money, he would get taxed and he will again loose that money. Most of the big businessman do exactly the same thing, so they are not to be glorified, because in the end they did not give any money, they had to loose the money in any case.

What nobody ever viewed is the comparison on how the money given to some random charity could be used if it went into taxes and into the government's cash register. Could it be used to build public schools, help the poor, feed the homeless, make more shelters for homeless, lower the taxes for everyone, or is it all irrelevant considering the amount of all the taxes and all those charities. Maybe it just isn't enough to make an impact on the whole countries taxes, but then again, 35 mil for just one donation is a lot of money and this way a person can get the publicity he wants/needs, he gets a hall named after him, people will say how great he is and his ego grows much more than if he had just paid taxes to the state.

Always be careful around these rich people, they ALWAYS have an agenda when it comes to money, they never share it around without reason. Profitable reason.

Exactly!!! This guy knows WTF he is talking about.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of charities are fakes, or are just being used for their agenda. A great example of this is with Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft.

Bill Gates donated tons of money to charities to get schools computer systems. Which sounds great, but what Operating system do you suppose was on those systems? Microsoft Windows obviously. This was absolutely brilliant for two reasons.

A huge chunk of that "donation" was nothing more than the sales value of his Operating system on those PCs.

Kids were being trained to use Microsoft Windows OS. Operating systems are sort of like languages, and once people learn one, they generally tend to stick with it. So essentially, he wasn't so much giving anything away as ensuring that the next generations used Microsoft Windows, thus ensuring his monopoly.

All these rich people are nothing more than snakes in the grass. That's how you get rich, you screw over as many people as possible without going to jail.

Others donate to churches, and cal it a charity donation. That is absolute bollocks.
The last religious charity I saw in the news gave starving children in Haiti an electronic bible after a huge natural disaster.